JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The Award dated 18th December, 1991 passed by the 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc.Case No.287 of 1985 is assailed in this appeal. The learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.40,000.00 with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from 2.9.1985, the date of filing of the aforesaid Misc.Case in favour of the claimant/petitioners. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the offending truck having registration number ORX 5216, subsequently amended as ORC 5216, was not insured with it and as such it is not liable to pay any compensation. In support of such contention the learned counsel for the Insurance Company relied on the averments in the objection filed by the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal which were as follows :- “The opp.party No.2 begs to submit that as yet the petitioners have not disclosed the policy number of the offending vehicle save and except serving a notice u/O.11, R.12 C.P.C. giving some wrong and incorrect number of the Insurance Certifi¬cate. As a matter of fact, the opp.party No.2 after examining its records could not trace any policy of vehicle ORC 5216 and the number of the certificate as mentioned in the notice is not cor¬rect. The applicants therefore be called upon to supply correct number of the Insurance Policy to enable this opp.party to make further search on the basis of full and complete policy number (provided such correct number is supplied by the petitioner) and until the correct number is given, no liability be saddled against this opp.party No.2". 3. On the basis of the aforesaid categorical statement made by the Insurance Company that there was no material to reveal that the offending vehicle had been insured with it, and as neither the owner nor the petitioners could produce the mate¬rials in support of their stand that the vehicle had been insured with the appellant, it is submitted that the compensation cannot be saddled on it. 4. Learned Tribunal however observing that the owner of the offending vehicle was silent and had not contested the case, and the Insurance Company though called upon did not file the insurance policy, held the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation. 5. 4. Learned Tribunal however observing that the owner of the offending vehicle was silent and had not contested the case, and the Insurance Company though called upon did not file the insurance policy, held the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation. 5. Perusal of the records reveals that the number of the insurance policy of the offending truck was not known. The money receipt bearing number ‘005425’ did not indicate the policy number nor any other particulars were supplied so as to enable the Insurance Company to trace out the policy. But then liability to pay compensation, in consonance with the Motor Vehicles Act, is always of the owner. If a policy existed at the time of the accident, the compensation amount is to be reimbursed by the Insurance Company. On the other hand, if there is no policy, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. 6. In view of the aforesaid position, while upholding the impugned Award this Court directs that the entire amount as per the Award be paid to respondents 1 and 2 by the owner respondent No.3 instead of the appellant Insurance Company. Liberty is however granted to the owner to get the amount paid by him reim¬bursed from the appellant-Insurance Company on production of insurance policy and establishing that the vehicle had been covered by that at the relevant time. The statutory deposit made by the appellant before this Court be returned to it along with interest accrued thereon, if any. The M.A. is accordingly disposed of. M.A. disposed of.